Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Practical Suggestions for Ending Teacher Disarmament

School
districts in Nevada are talking about arming teachers. Most people who are
opposed to concealed carry in schools are mostly concerned about the potential
side-effects. What if a student disarms the teacher? What if the teacher
fumbles the gun and negligently discharges? What if the teacher is a bad shot
and wounds a bystander? The rest are simply vehement hoplopaths
and don’t deserve a seat at the table; this goes for teachers’ unions, which
are firmly entrenched in the tail-chasing sniff circle.

All too often, schools, colleges, and universities refuse to
exercise their discretion in allowing responsible people to carry guns purely
out of fear. No administrator wants to lose their job or cost their institution
money. The time has passed for us to sacrifice our students’ lives over such
petty fears as careers and budgets. We must implement the one practical
solution that does hold promise; good guys with guns.

First, no one is talking about mandating all teachers carry
guns. That is hype meant to discredit the idea of ending the long prohibition
of letting teachers, parents, and staff fight back with the most effective
means of doing so. For 29 years, teachers, professors, staff, college students,
and parents have been disarmed because
Clark County wanted a law to arrest gang members who brought guns on
campus. Since very few Americans carried regularly at that time, no one thought
to exclude law abiding adults from the ban.

After many tragedies, we are finally waking up to the
reality that we must have people on campus who can fight back with guns;
unfortunately, police cannot always be there and cannot be guaranteed to enter
the fray. An armed teacher or parent can be in the thick of it and do some
good. It would cost schools very little to simply stop objecting to campus
carry laws or refusing permission to carry on campus.

Liability is
probably the number one concern for administrators who might otherwise grant
permission. Unfortunately, money and personal consequences override the safety
of students. Its financially and career-wise safer to say “no guns” than to say
yes.

Financially, school districts or the state should suck it
up; even in Nevada, we give enough money to education that even if there were
an increase in premium, it’s worth it to avert a mass killing. What would
really be nice is for insurers to realize that risk isn’t going up and just leave
premiums alone, but asking bean counters for this is like asking a personal
injury attorney to get an honest job.

State law ought to require that insurers not use armed staff
and parents as a basis for premium rating. If the legislature wants, they can
really make life miserable for insurance companies. Second, for self-insured
schools, absolve them of any liability by statute. Any misdeed by an armed
teacher, staff member, or a parents is the individual’s problem. Money saved
and one excuse gone.

Finally, solid decision making guidelines need to be set
forth. Ideally, a simple change in law allowing concealed carry on campuses
without prior approval would be the law. End of story, no one needs permission,
so an administrator nervous about losing his job won’t be able to use that as
an excuse to deny permission to carry. If we cannot get a simple bill passed, a
bill should specify the exact conditions, as few as possible, to be satisfied
and grant authority.

Discretion should be
strictly limited. Have a concealed firearm permit? Meet any extra criteria?
Permission is guaranteed under the law or shall-be given. The flaw in Florida’s
new law is that it requires both school and sheriff’s permission; one or both
can sink the ship. Anti-gun administrators or politicians can easily quash
requests to carry. Children’s lives should not be at risk because a principal
wants to virtue signal or is empty-headed about safety.

Secrecy needs to be
paramount, and not just so would-be killers don’t know to target who first.
Parents, teachers, and staff who have permission to carry should have their
information shielded. This may need to be a part of state law. The current
vague standards in place for K-12 schools allows a principal to grant
permission in the form of a letter, a single copy, to the person, while
retaining that information in their mind.

That would not be subject to a public records request. As we
have seen in the past, unscrupulous reporters have created CCW databases.
Democrat operatives or Everytown employees could do the same to shame teachers
or administrators. One fear of administrators, from the colleges down, is that
if they grant permission, they will be exposed ridiculed, disciplined, or even
fired. We have to alleviate that concern.

As a side note, all “blue card” handgun registration
information was public information. Until the database was destroyed, anyone
could have requested specifics on what hands guns anyone in Clark County owned,
including police.

Any additional
training should be tactics and skill based. If legislators (in particular)
or local officials want to add on additional training requirements, the
curriculum should be uniform and practical. For instance, marksmanship
requirements and an action-style shoot. Example:

Grouping of six inches or less at 25 yards

Shoot the head of a hostage-type target at 10 yards (length
of a class room)

Fire/don’t fire exercise using simulator or live-action
exercise

Such criteria could be the responsibility of the Nevada
Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, as the CFP and instructor criteria is, or DPS.
This way, it is uniform across the state and something that can help reduce the
fears that people might have that a poor shooter might hit an innocent student
instead of the bad guy. Certainly prior law enforcement experience or being a
veteran should not be a requirement to carry.

We cannot let misplaced feelings and ideas about guns and
the law-abiding people who carry them stand in the way of our children’s safety
any longer. Fear is not an acceptable excuse for taking no action to allow
adults to carry at schools. Nor can we let a hodgepodge and subjective system
for allowing teachers to defend themselves limit that right. Let no anti-gun
organization masquerading as a gun safety group tell us our children are better
off undefended.

1 comment:

I am a CCW holder and a teacher. While I am horrified that the law currently allows all school occupants to be sitting ducks, and creates an welcoming environment for cowardly and sick-minded killers to unleash their desires, I do not beleive gun carry should be allowed on campuses without appropriate training. I 100% agree with your suggestions under the heading "Any additional training should be tactics and skill based." I would not agree to carry on campus without this as I am fully aware that there are additional dangers and necessary precautions that need to be addressed when working in such an environment.Let's all face it, our community has entrusted their children's safety and education in our hands. Can you imagine the guilt and frustration of those teachers who could not save the lives of those children as a mass-murderer raged through their campus? Knowing that we have responsible people willing to risk their lives to end this violence (and most likely prevent it from occuring at all), should be enough to support well written legislation.